"This is the web. If you put a public document onto it, it's linkable. If you don't want to be linked to, use some other means of putting your information online."

The amazing thing is that they could actually make it technically *impossible* for others to link/frame/deep-link to them with one line of apache config, blocking offsite referrers.

This, for me, is the real boggling thing. There is a trivial technical means at your disposal to accomplish your clueless objective. Rather than avail yourself of it, you prefer to throw up pompous forms and/or sue people (as anti-deep-linkers have taken to doing).

When it's cheaper to litigate than it is to change one line in your httpd config, it's a sure sign that your sysadmin is overpaid or your counsel is underpaid.

Nice rant. I, of course, hate NLR (National Liberal radio) for an entirely different set of reasons. That is that my tax dollars go to sponsor what is a very and completly biased point of view that does not represent the majority of this country's people. This adds even more fuel to the fire - they don't serve the public interest.

Wait a minute, exactly how much public money does NPR actually get these days? Not much, is my impression.

The idea that NPR is in any meaningful sense liberal is pretty silly, actually.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion and I have mine. I find their news coverage very liberaly biased.

Yeah, what Cory said about lawyers being underpaid. Yeah!

Seriously, though, when's the last time anyone has ever felt the need to link to NPR? This is a sure way to sink themselves further into oblivion.

Here's what I wrote to the ombudsman:

I believe in an open Web.
I understand that NPR does not.

Any group that does not understand the difference
between linking to pages (where it's clear who
"owns" the material) and putting other people's
Web pages in trapping frames (where it isn't clear
who "owns" the material) is sufficiently clueless
about the Web that they should simply close up their Web site and go away.

If you don't want people to link to material at
your site, move it periodically so the URLs
are changed and people will get the hint and stop.

If you don't want people to put your pages
in trapping frames, there is a trivial way to prevent that from happening - add the following
lines to the of each Web page:

var strRedirect = "index.html"
if (top != self)
{
window.open(strRedirect,"_top")
}

where "index.html" is replaced by the name of
the current file.

In this way, companies like "about.com" that
hijack other people's pages are prevented from doing so. Adding the following line
to each page's head:

prevents Microsoft from similarly manhandling your pages.

Linking between pages is a strength of the Web -
trapping other people's content is a poor practice that an alert page coder can stop. But making it sound like linking to another's page is somehow illegal is even worse than trapping content.

--
** Laurie D. T. Mann *** *** *** ** *** *** http://www.dpsinfo.com **

I'm also letting the OpenLink people know about this. (http://www.lowendmac.com/link.shtml)

Yes, I should have remembered my code would
disappear here. Just open any of my pages
and look at the head. I'm sure Cory's right about
setting an attribute in Apache, but as I like people
to link to my sites, I'd never do that!

The best part is that now, in an orgy of self-reference, every blog in the world is going to (without permission) link to NPR's "do not link to NPR without permission" page.

Whenever I see firms complaining about deep linking-- or about linking to their material at all-- I want to shake the person responsible by the lapels and yell, "Why did you put this stuff on the Web in the first place? What do you think it's for?"

Some people even complain occasionally about the wrong people *looking at* material that they placed in completely unsecured fashion on a public Web server. But these folks are usually rank newbies who can be expected not to know any better.

We're having a pretty rollicking debate about framing (with me holding up the pro side pretty much on my lonesome) on the Boing Boing Quicktopic for this story:

http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/3yjTKHPudSM

(to read thread from oldest to newest, use http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/3yjTKHPudSM/p-1.-1?o=1&range=0&m1=1&mN=17&print=1&submit=Show+printable+page)

Suffice it to say, I think that the default position of material on the web is that it may be linked to, whether in frames or with links. That default position gives the web its strength and resilience.

Laws that change that assumption -- like the case-law that emerged from the framing case -- challenge the Internet with bad legal code.

Some of us want to be framed (like me). There is no programmatic means for us to communicate that desire to software and web-page authors.

However, there are two trivial programmatic means whereby someone like you, who wants your pages not to be framed, to express that desire: server config and javascript frame-busters.

It seems to me that given these technical realities, it is more sensible to keep the Internet's default assumption (URLs are not, by default, subject to permission) intact, and allow those who dislike frames to use technical measures to evade them

By comparison, this is from the impure, profit-seeking newspaper-Website of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/talk/copy.htm

"You may create Web links to any URL on WashingtonPost.com, including articles."

That's a change for WaPo. I remember a few years back, when my company was hosting the Cypherpunks mailing list archives, we received a copyright violation letter about a Post article posted to the list.

During the talk with their lawyer, they asked us if we could tell them who made the original post, so they could go after them. I said with the prevalence of anonymous remailers on Cypherpunks, it would be unlikely. But we'd be happy to tell them if they'd tell us who Deep Throat was.

Never heard back from them after that.

Glenn, I actually think most people would agree that there's a substantial difference between posting a link to a public HTML document, and copying the contents of that document wholesale.

In fact, the whole argument for the legitimacy of such linking--really, for the Web--rests on that distinction.

I am happy the discussion turned from the trite "liberal bias" claim against NPR, to the real issue of the ignorant actions of NPR management. I too find their mixing of issues troubling from what is normally a web friendly organization. I have been listening to ATC as I type and I have heard the hosts reference their website several times. They are promoting the site in hopes of more traffic. Links from other sites do the same thing, and cost nothing.

I can't understand why all the sites concerned about deep linking don't follow the wash post example. Every time I am deep linked there I get an annoying pop up ad. This guaruntees that I will see an ad when I access their site. Everyone wins......

Patrick: I agree. We did remove the article, as I recall (and this was in the days before DMCA). But this was also before WaPo was as link-friendly as they are now.

I was going to make a comment here, but I got to ranting at length while I was waiting for my neurologist's office to call back, so I've posted it separately to Making Light.

This has also now been picked up by Wired News, as you all no doubt probably know -- they have a very funny editorial about it all, too.

Me? Hey, I gotta go cook dinner now; and I'll be listening to Terry Gross... (Proof and everything: I am not consistent...)

I mentioned this to Patrick, but it's worth noting electionically:

I have given money to my local NPR affiliate every year for the last five years. On Tuesday, I wrote to NPR and told them that they will not receive another penny from me until they remove that obnoxious page. Today, it occurred to me to write to my local affiliate and tell them, too.

I encourage everyone who cares about this to do similarly.

While I know this is probably useless, still, I gotta try.

NPR is an American news organization. As such, its main ideology -- like all US news organizations -- is to preserve the status quo. This is because reporters have become so enamored of "source" journalism that, more than anything, they want their sources to promote and advance. {shrug}

As may be, a trip over to the web site for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, following by going through their report for the year 2000 (why they don't have one more recent, I don't know), shows that CPB gave NPR a whole $29,619 that year. That works out, with a US population of 275 million, to .0001058 cents per capita.

Tell ya what, Sam. What say I mail you a penny, and we'll call it even?

But there's another flaw here. Let's say NPR is "liberal" in the pejorative sense, and not "liberal" in the sense of liberal arts, or liberal Western civilization.

Here's what John Hockenberry once said: "By the time I left NPR in 1992, it was an audience-driven, revenue-driven entity, not unlike corporate media outlets. The programming strategy was dominated by the ideal that we had to grow our audience in the same way that the commercial media grows its audience."

So, if NPR is indeed "liberal" in the pejorative sense -- whatever that may be -- it is so for good conservative, market-driven, laissez-faire reasons. Just like the rest of the media. {shrug}

Hal, I agree with most of that, and your last point is a good (and funny) one. I only don't understand why you thought it was "probably useless".

Hey, there's a new section up on the linking-form page:

--
To those of you who wrote to us about our linking permission policy, thanks for your many comments. Many of you offered thoughtful insights that have prompted us to reevaluate this policy.
--

There's more:

"I only don't understand why you thought it was "probably useless".

Patrick, my experience is that folks who go on the "NPR is too liberal" kick are people who either a) don't listen to NPR much, b) tend to mean by "liberal" merely that they don't like it much (ie, the term isn't so much an ideological assessment per se, as much as it's an esthetic judgement), or c) don't understand that "non-profit" does not necessarily mean "government funded".

Those are all positions -- again, in my experience -- that don't readily change with discussion. Which means things fall into a Palin-Cleese That's Not An Argument Clinic.

Hm. Perhaps by "useless" I only mean "terribly self-indulgent"? :) In other words, I wrote without any real expectation of persuading Sam, merely of setting the record straight in my own head.

Those are all positions -- again, in my experience -- that don't readily change with discussion
>>>
Well, what a delightful summation in your email of what reality is for you: black and white, right and wrong. My point of view is just as valid as yours. For the record, I did listen to NPR a lot, especially during the Sept 11 coverage and I found their coverage descipable and rooted in giving symapathy and air to cold blooded killer's point of view over any other.

I am not wrong as a person for being conservative. We have a country that allowed multiple points of view, last time I checked. As for the penny quip, its laughable. The fact still remains that it is "NATIONAL" public radio and should more closely represent the interests of the entire nation, not a small minority of upper-intellectual, latte-guzzling, rabid Liberals. Their coverage does not represent the middle of the road and conservative points of view at all. There are no conservative commentators. But even leaving that aside, the news should be delivered as is, without bias. Unfornately, NPR, like all 3 networks (as documented well in the book Bias) all have Left of Center and Democratic bias.

I don't waste my time with this thread any longer.

I'm not sure if Sam said this, but someone apparently said:

"For the record, I did listen to NPR a lot, especially during the Sept 11 coverage and I found their coverage descipable and rooted in giving symapathy and air to cold blooded killer's point of view over any other."

When I read things like that, I sometimes think
people experience an alternate reality.

I listen to NPR quite a bit, and didn't hear one
sympathetic portrayal of Osama bin Laden, al Queda
or the Taliban. I have heard some pro-Palestinian
reporting on NPR, but I've never heard anything
remotely pro bin Laden.

"experience an alternate reality."

I said it. I don't know who you think you are Laurie Mann. What does "alternate reality" mean? I can tell you what those harsh words mean to me and how you have no right to utter them. You and I have a *very* serious problem now. I expect a full apology.

Well, what a delightful summation in your email of what reality is for you: black and white, right and wrong.

Well, no. One of the things I keep saying is, Everything is provisional, pending better data. Show me better data, and I can be persuaded. {shrug} I thought, that by putting in my many hedges, and indicating as closely as I could my limited context, that I was allowing for quite a bit of grey. If you choose not to see that, well... such is your choice.

My point of view is just as valid as yours.

Indeed. I agree. Please show me where I have said anything else.

For the record, I did listen to NPR a lot, especially during the Sept 11 coverage and I found their coverage descipable and rooted in giving symapathy and air to cold blooded killer's point of view over any other.

That doesn't square with my own experience, but if so, fine.

I am not wrong as a person for being conservative.

I have never said you are. Especially since I consider myself to be a conseravtive, as well.

We have a country that allowed multiple points of view, last time I checked.

Indeed. Which is why it strikes me as troubling that you appear to wish to disparage a media outlet you disagree with, merely because you disagree with it.

As for the penny quip, its laughable.

Um... which one? Oh, oh, you mean about the penny itself, not characterizing my views as such. Sorry, that was a bit unlcear.

Hm. Well, I would hope it was laughable, as it was meant humorously. But the fact remains, the per capita contribution to NPR is less than a penny. Do you have any figures to counter that? (Looking over my math, it seems I made an error -- $29619/275 million is .0001078 dollars per capita, or .01078 cents... but, there I go, correcting for better data again.)

The fact still remains that it is "NATIONAL" public radio and should more closely represent the interests of the entire nation, not a small minority of upper-intellectual, latte-guzzling, rabid Liberals.

And the source of your demographic analysis would be? I'm sure Starbucks would be interested. (Although, given Starbucks' success, I'm not sure their clientele is a minority of the country.)

As may be... Given that NPR is market-driven, I suggest again that perhaps liberalism sells better than conservatism. Which, if one is a free-market conservative such as myself, is a good thing. Such is the nature of paradoxes, they're paradoxical.

Their coverage does not represent the middle of the road and conservative points of view at all. There are no conservative commentators.

Bill Kristol, longtime editor of the Weekly Standard and NPR commentator, is no longer a conservative? Let alone their regular interviews of folks from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute? Fascinating.

But even leaving that aside, the news should be delivered as is, without bias. Unfornately, NPR, like all 3 networks (as documented well in the book Bias) all have Left of Center and Democratic bias.

Haven't read the book. Odds are I'd disagree with it, though. Especially (as I look at the Amazon listing for the book) since it's a tell-all anecdotal biography, and nothing resembling an objective study. {shrug} You and I appear to have different standards of proof, but as mentioned above, that's probably a good thing.

I don't waste my time with this thread any longer.

Awwww... Surely if Patrick can persuade me this isn't a waste of time, I have a chance to persuade you?

Sweetness:

Troll. Feed. Don't.

Please note the latest on the NPR linking battle, in the article from the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review, at this address.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/kramer/1026265197.php

According to contributing editor Staci D. Kramer:
"Instead of barring use of NPR links sans formal permission, an effort akin to plugging a dike with a pack of sugar, NPR now reminds people about copyright law and warns against the use of copyright material or NPR logos and trademark material without written permission. Framing also is prohibited. On the plus side, nowhere does NPR even appear to prohibit the practice of deep linking."

But, reading further down on Kramer's article on NPR's new linking policy, there does seem to be limits drawn:
"This is where you can imagine the word tilt in Roy Lichtenstein-like comic form. NPR maintains the right to use links to other sites (that’s the section about Links to Third Party Sites) with impunity while at the same time reserving its rights to tell other people not to link to NPR sites.
"In the legalistic sense, I understand the need to protect rights against real misuse but I still flinch at the notion that NPR might look at a site you or I would consider educational and deem it inappropriate because it doesn’t meet NPR’s standards."